Proof of Immortality II

[Jabba]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation... I hadn't noticed that implication before... I'll have to think about that...

Extending my thought experiment, this is what I get so far. My reasoning seems to imply that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation. According to the scientific model, I am extremely lucky to exist at all, let alone to exist right now. In addition, each of us existing humans, if you other humans are indeed conscious, is extremely lucky -- given the scientific model.

But Then, why stop there? I've really been assuming, so far, that any bit of consciousness involves a self of some sort. Assuming for the moment that all of life is conscious to some extent, my reasoning leads to the conclusion that life itself is extremely unlikely -- given the scientific model...

My house is teetering.

I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

I wouldn't worry too much about that. As far as the scientific model of consciousness is concerned "selves", as you define them, don't exist: consciousness is an emergent property of a system, not (as you claim) a thing. If your reasoning "seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation" it is most likely because your "scientific explanation" is a strawman.

Mojo, first you'll have to explain to me why whether the self is a thing, process or illusion really makes a difference. Note that so far, I've accepted that the self may be considered a process, or even an illusion (in some sense).

 

[Nonpareil]

Extending my thought experiment, this is what I get so far. My reasoning seems to imply that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation.

Which is, at best, an unfounded claim.

According to the scientific model, I am extremely lucky to exist at all, let alone to exist right now. In addition, each of us existing humans, if you other humans are indeed conscious, is extremely lucky -- given the scientific model.

No. Again, this is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

But Then, why stop there?

Because it might make some sense.

I've really been assuming, so far, that any bit of consciousness involves a self of some sort. Assuming for the moment that all of life is conscious to some extent, my reasoning leads to the conclusion that life itself is extremely unlikely -- given the scientific model...

Texas sharpshooter again.

My house is teetering.

I'll be back.

Please tell me you're going to read up on the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo, first you'll have to explain to me why whether the self is a thing, process or illusion really makes a difference.

Seriously?

Your entire argument relies on your "self" being an entity that is lucky enough to be occupying your body. That was the whole point of your claim that there are an infinite number of potential "selves", remember? If your "self" is just what your brain happens to be doing then the idea of it being unlikely that your "self" is associated with your body is nonsense.

Quite apart from the fact that if your consciousness is an emergent property of your brain then it can only exist for as long as your brain functions.

 

[jond]

Mojo, first you'll have to explain to me why whether the self is a thing, process or illusion really makes a difference. Note that so far, I've accepted that the self may be considered a process, or even an illusion (in some sense).

Seriously? Have you really not read the thousands of posts explaining this to you?

 

[Akhenaten]

To put this another way, Jabba, here's an example:

1. A is the hypothesis that a particular six-sided die produces a random result.
2. If A is correct, the odds of it producing a particular number is one in six.
3. You throw the die, it comes up as a three.
4. You then conclude that the odds of A being correct are one in six.

Do you see the non-sequitur there?

Yeah. Your analogy does not follow.

Analogies aren't required to follow anything.

The problem here, at least for Jabbanetics™ is that its chief (only?) proponent doesn't follow the analogy.

Ops Normal.

Did you bet your house on the three? If so, You are either very lucky, or your six sided die did not produce a random result.

How fascinating! A false dilemma/non sequitur hybrid.

I'm going to name him 'Timmy'.

 

[Giordano]

Extending my thought experiment, this is what I get so far. My reasoning seems to imply that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation. According to the scientific model, I am extremely lucky to exist at all, let alone to exist right now. In addition, each of us existing humans, if you other humans are indeed conscious, is extremely lucky -- given the scientific model.

But Then, why stop there? I've really been assuming, so far, that any bit of consciousness involves a self of some sort. Assuming for the moment that all of life is conscious to some extent, my reasoning leads to the conclusion that life itself is extremely unlikely -- given the scientific model...

My house is teetering.

I'll be back.

I'll make it simple for you:
1. There is no thing such as a consciousness: it is a process generated by a healthly physical nervous system. So the scientific model is perfectly compatable with consciousness, but your model, and your perverted concept of the scientific model, are not.
2. Both your model, and your perverted idea of the scientific model, generate the same problem with your formula and with your idea of a special Jabba: they both generate far too many possible consciousnesses to explain why you received the Jabba consciousness. In fact, this is a bigger problem with your model than with the true SM (which doesn't use infinity as a number).

But I can help you, without even believing in what I tell you: your model of Jabba being special and lucky, and therefore receiving the Jabba consciousness rather than any other, only works with your math if some entity (presumably intelligent, you may call it god if you wish) created and selectively chose the Jabba consciousness just before your birth so that "he" intentionally installed it into you. There is, of course, no evidence for such a idea, but you haven't let that stop you in the past.

 

[Hokulele]

Extending my thought experiment, this is what I get so far. My reasoning seems to imply that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation.

Or, it implies that your understanding of consciousness is wrong.

 

[Giordano]

Yeah. Your analogy does not follow.

Did you bet your house on the three? If so, You are either very lucky, or your six sided die did not produce a random result.

I think your problem is that you are confusing the probability of a happenstance with the consequences of that happenstance. The advance probability of throwing a 3 on fair 6-sided die is always 1/6. In this case the consequence of throwing a 3 is very fortunate for you (you can, as many people, use the term "lucky" but you really mean "fortunate"). But the fact that you are fortunate doesn't mean that the advance probability of throwing the 3 was any different than 1/6.

Your problem is that the term "lucky" sometimes is used to mean that something changes the advance probability by some paranormal ability and that a person was "lucky" one night in a casino because somehow they had a better chance of winning than probability would predict. "I couldn't loose last night." Of course, they are wrong. As you understand from your statistics background, there will be clusters of certain numbers and then clusters of others, all at random. So one might have been "lucky" in that the random cluster of numbers was fortunate for them (they won a lot of money), but the advance probability was no different for them than for anyone. Thinking otherwise is why casinos have the money to build big buildings.

 

[Giordano]

Jabba,

I think you have been led astray by Toontown in some of your thinking about probability and your own specialness. You are relying on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy whether the two of you understand it or not. Frankly, I have looked at all of Toontown's posts several times, and I can only conclude that Toontown's posts present an extremely inaccurate model of statistics. I would not use them to define your own understanding. Rely on most of the other posters here, who do understand statistics.

 

[Akhenaten]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation...

That's because your reasoning has created a version of consciousness which includes a component - the soul - which has never been shown to exist.

I hadn't noticed that implication before...

Despite it being pointed out to you about a thousand times?

I'll have to think about that...

You already have, and then simply refused to address it no matter how many times it was pointed out to you.

A continuance of this behaviour will surprise nobody.

 

[xtifr]

Did you bet your house on the three? If so, You are either very lucky, or your six sided die did not produce a random result.

Nobody bet on your existence. In fact, you didn't even realize it—let alone consider it lucky—until after the fact. Basically by definition. Which is why this is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

For that matter, you only consider consciousness to be special because it's a property that you have. But really, all properties are special. Contains-carbon is a special property. Lots of things don't contain carbon. The things that do can be considered "lucky". But really, it's just something that happened. Like one particular side of a 1/10⁸⁰! sided die coming up. Your consciousness is just something that happened.

You're mixing a priori and post facto reasoning, and assuming there's no difference between the two, which is why you're coming to fallacious conclusions. It's really that simple.

 

[Giordano]

I have been optimistic at times that Jabba has finally understood a point that we have been trying to communicate to him for months. This is one of those times. But I wouldn't bet on it; I don't fell lucky

 

[Akhenaten]

Extending my thought experiment, this is what I get so far. My reasoning seems to imply that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation.

Therefore your reasoning is faulty.

According to the scientific model, I am extremely lucky to exist at all, let alone to exist right now.

No matter how many times you repeat this fantasy of yours about what the scientific model says, it will never become true.

In addition, each of us existing humans, if you other humans are indeed conscious, is extremely lucky -- given the scientific model.

If?

In any case what about the humans which no longer exist? Are they "unlucky".

But Then, why stop there?

I'd normally suggest "to avoid further embarrassment" but that ship sailed long ago.

I've really been assuming, so far, that any bit of consciousness involves a self of some sort.

The only thing about which you've ever been marginally correct, despite being completely unable to express it coherently.

Assuming for the moment that all of life is conscious to some extent, my reasoning leads to the conclusion that life itself is extremely unlikely -- given the scientific model...

Your assumption is wrong, as any plant will tell you.

Further, it's false of you to claim that your reasoning has ever led to any conclusion. Your arguments invariably start with a conclusion and only after that does what you are referring to as reasoning start to take place.

Further still, you're still working with your own fanciful version of the scientific model which has explanatory use whatsoever.

My house is teetering.

Shelter in the breakfast nook.

I'll be back.

No, you won't.

 

[Akhenaten]

Mojo, first you'll have to explain to me why whether the self is a thing, process or illusion really makes a difference.

Why? Did you forget the hundreds of times it's already been explained to you?

Or is it, as many suspect, that you never bothered to read those posts?

Note that so far, I've accepted that the self may be considered a process, or even an illusion (in some sense).

Then you need to explain how you think that process or illusion is able to continue after the demise of the brain upon which it is utterly dependent.

 

[Giordano]

Mojo, first you'll have to explain to me why whether the self is a thing, process or illusion really makes a difference.

Or you can read the many, many posts that have already been made that explain this. Try it.

 

[Giordano]

Note that so far, I've accepted that the self may be considered a process, or even an illusion (in some sense).

No you haven't, because if you had accepted it you would instantly have abandoned your model of immortality and of reincarnation. There is no other choice.

 

[Loss Leader]

Mojo, first you'll have to explain to me why whether the self is a thing, process or illusion really makes a difference. Note that so far, I've accepted that the self may be considered a process, or even an illusion (in some sense).

There are literally hundreds of explanations in this thread.

Let's first take the unfortunate situation of someone who has had a stroke - my mother, sadly. My mother was a lawyer and a very good one until she had a stroke. Now, she cannot think very clearly, is sliding into dementia, cannot remember names or even what she was just doing. She keeps asking me to play the song, "One Summer Night," even after she has just heard it, although she never seemed to like the song before her stroke.

So, who is the person that is my mother? What is her self? What is there to get reincarnated? Is she the person she was when her brain was working perfectly? Is she a different person now? Her "self" depends on the physical state of her brain. Without a physical brain, there is no person there. What portion of that is a soul?

Let's now take the even sadder case of my friend's son. Tragically, he has a genetic condition that has left him mentally disabled (fragile x). Absent the miscoded gene, he would be a completely different person in that he might be able to, you know, talk. Who is the real boy? What could possibly be immortal? The way his brain works is his identity.

You say you've "accepted" that the self could be considered a process. I don't think you have. If you had, you wouldn't keep asking whether a self could be recreated. Running isn't recreated each time I break into a sprint. Once you honestly deal with that truth, you will see that your entire idea of immortality is, at best, fantasy.

 

[John Jones]

Yeah. Your analogy does not follow.

[...]

Jabba, none of your analogies follow anything resembling logic.

After two years of your failed arguments (totally ignoring the Tablecloth of Turin debacle), why have you suddenly decided that logical arguments are worth pursuing?

 

[pakeha]

Unfortunately, My reasoning seems to require that the very existence of consciousness defies the scientific explanation... I hadn't noticed that implication before... I'll have to think about that...

It's a strange moment, isn't it, when suddenly you understand why spiritual explanations for what we experience are utterly and completely false.
Even so, sunsets and meteor showers are still awesome.

[ . . . ]But I can help you, without even believing in what I tell you: your model of Jabba being special and lucky, and therefore receiving the Jabba consciousness rather than any other, only works with your math if some entity (presumably intelligent, you may call it god if you wish) created and selectively chose the Jabba consciousness just before your birth so that "he" intentionally installed it into you. There is, of course, no evidence for such a idea, but you haven't let that stop you in the past.

Circular reasoning 101?